The thunderstorm to end all thunderstorms

Holy crap.

So I was just at an event for State House candidate Eric Palmer, which Chris will probably blog about later. I looked outside and it was raining, but it was time to go, so I decided to walk to my car.

I walked a block and now I'm soaked to the skin. I came home and all the windows in my apartment are leaking. It's raining and blowing so hard that water is coming in through my window unit air conditioner.

Now this is a storm. :)

KL

Breaking news:

I'm hearing from the O'Brien campaign this morning that Mark Warner, during his visit to Iowa earlier this week, cut the campaign a check for $10,000 to help Denise win her race for secretary of ag.

In an ideal world, huge campaign contributions like this wouldn't be necessary, but in our current world, donations like this from presidential candidates could be what it takes to get Denise over the top.

It's also great to see this after noting that Warner, as other candidates often do, completely failed to acknowledge O'Brien at the event earlier this week.

KL

What I'm reading today...

Four things worth noting:

Gavin is back, and while most of his posts have been about the Lamont/Lieberman race in Connecticut, which doesn't need any extra attention, he did provide this response to a ridiculous email from the Nussle campaign.

Denise O'Brien has a blog I'm adding to the links on the right. It's not much for content, but it does have a lot of pictures, so, y'know, if you're into maximum pictures with minimal content, go check it out.

David Yepsen also has a blog. The RSS feed doesn't work, but so far the content is decent. Yepsen takes a beating around the blogosphere, sometimes deservedly so, but he does have access to people most of us will never have access to, and as a result, he's sometimes ahead of the curve.

Finally, the Register has a pretty good editorial today pointing out the hypocrisy of Jeff Lamberti's decision to blame Leonard Boswell for record deficits. I know the Boswell campaign is excited about this: they emailed me this morning to make sure I saw it. The question is, now that Lamberti is lampooning the budget process and blaming all responsible, how does Nussle feel about it?

KL

Here's something that probably won't surprise you:

I’m not entirely non-partisan.

While I’ve certainly been pretty critical of the Democratic Party lately, I’d like to make sure you all remember that the Republicans have some problems too.

Earlier today, Chris Woods mentioned a Civic Skinny column in Cityview that referenced the Iowa GOP platform, in all its crazy glory.

I don’t think most Republicans are crazy. In fact, I know some Republicans who are great people, more so than most Democrats I know. But it seems rather obvious to me that reasonable Republicans avoided this event like the plague, or were shouted down on a wide variety of right-wing, homophobic, xenophobic, bible-thumping issues.

In his post, Chris asked for readers to look over the platform, pick a favorite crazy plank, and post it in the comments. I read over the platform, and copied down my favorites to narrow down to one. I can’t. Here are my favorite 33. I haven’t doctored them at all, except fixing the typo in 1.6.

1.6 We support agriculture and value added agriculture products in Iowa; therefore, we support the livestock industry in this state and support those who engage in it while recognizing the need to protect the environment, but no(t) at the expense of a vibrant livestock industry.

Or, to shorten: “We’re sorry about our pig shit, but the industry is more important.”

2.6 We support a landlord’s right to refuse leasing property and business owner refusing service based on moral grounds of individuals not covered by the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

The biggest group left out of the Iowa Civil Rights Act is the GLBT community, so apparently, if you’re gay, the Republican Party wants the right to kick you out of your home.

3.4 We support the teaching of alternative theories on the origins of life including Darwinian Evolution, Creation Science or Intelligent Design, and that each should be given equal weight in presentation.

In high school, a friend of mine decided to create a religion to see how many people he could force to react to it. It was Captain Crunchism, the belief was that Captain Crunch was the supreme entity in the universe. I don’t know about that, but I will say this: He’s been a Captain since 1963, isn’t it time to promote him?

Anyway, when public schools accept my friend’s assertion and teach Crunchism on equal footing with evolution, then they can also teach Creation Science and Intelligent Design. Until then, not allowed.

As an aside, there’s lots of bitching in the education section about how our schools don’t get anything done. Maybe they’d get more done if they weren’t mandated to teach creationism and intelligent design?

These three go together:

3.5 We believe that educators should stress abstinence outside of marriage as the surest way to prevent pregnancy, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and associated psychological problems. We also oppose the distribution of condoms in tax-funded schools.
3.6 We oppose the teaching of sex education in any form, at any grade level without written parental consent.
3.8 We oppose the teaching of homosexual behavior as a normal, acceptable or alternative lifestyle, and believe that sex education must emphasize traditional heterosexual lifestyles.

So, ideally, our schools should not teach what people do, but if they do, they should teach and above all else encourage not to, but even if they can’t do that, they are absolutely not under any circumstances allowed to be accepting and/or understanding of homosexuals.

3.12 We believe that all public employees should receive equal treatment for all employee benefits and policies regardless of organizational affiliation.

I agree. Being in a gay pride group shouldn’t bar you from working as a public employee. I don’t think that’s what they had in mind, though.

3.15 We believe increased funding should not be the measure of support for the education in Iowa. Rather, support for policies and curriculum that returns the focus of Iowa K-12 education to basic academic achievement and appreciation for Western Civilization should be the measure of excellence in education.

This is pretty awful. We’ll measure the excellence of our schools by their appreciation for Western Civilization? What’s the xenophobia standardized test going to look like?

“I’m sorry Billy, we know you were looking forward to fourth grade, but we’re going to have to keep you back a year, you haven’t developed a significant hatred for foreign culture yet.”

3.17 We call for the repeal of the ban on reasonable corporal punishment in Iowa schools, and for legal protection for teachers and principals who reasonably punish students for misbehavior. We believe that students’ civil liberties are not being infringed upon by punishing wrong behavior.

Do I really need to say anything about a movement to reinstate corporal punishment?

3.19 We oppose scholarship programs that exclusively benefit homosexual students.

I bet you do. Heave forbid we’d let gays get educated. Someday they might try to overthrow us.

Of course, the “Family Values” section:

5.1 We support an amendment to both the state and federal Constitutions defining marriage as the exclusive union between one man and one woman.

5.2 We support the elimination of no-fault divorce.

5.3 We support adoption by heterosexual married couples only.

I think those three speak for themselves.

5.4 We oppose the creation of a protected class based on sexual orientation.

Ok, so gays can’t get married, adopt, their lifestyle can’t be portrayed as “normal, acceptable or alternative,” and if they’re discovered as being gay, they can be fired from their jobs and evicted from their homes. Is there really any danger of them becoming a “protected” class?

5.5 We believe that parents are responsible for their children, and we support the rights of parents to discipline, protect and educate their children.

Discipline translates to “I’ll beat my kids if I want.”
Protect from what? Gays? Foreigners? Dr. Phil?
Is there any limit on how parents can educate their children now?

6.6 We support building new prisons, as necessary to protect the public from violent criminals.

Less than 20% of Iowa’s prison population is there for a violent crime. So in reality, to protect the public from violent criminals, we need one wing of Fort Madison. No new construction necessary.

6.10 We support the right of employees to organize, and to not have dues used to support political candidates, and requiring unions to receive written permission from each member before collecting funds for political purposes.

Translates to: We support the right to form unions, as long as they remain as powerless politically as they were before they organized.

6.13 We assert that the phrase, “the separation of church and state” as is commonly used, contradicts the original intent and practice of the Framers of the Constitution.

Many of the founders of our country were Deists. I’m pretty sure this is exactly what they had in mind.

7.10 We are opposed in principle to Universal and/or Nationalized Health Care, believing that common sense and the market place can do what government can not: bring customers, health care providers and health care professionals together in a mutually beneficial union.

I really honestly don’t think the problem most Americans face is a total lack of common sense. I think the people who say that are usually saying it because they’re upset over someone else’s views on an issue.

Health care, like education, is a right, and the second we rely on the market to provide us with a right, we give the market the opportunity to do something unexpected and cause a crisis.

8.3 We believe in a strong national defense.

Democrats, on the other hand, would take away guns from our armed forces and give them daisies to hand out to would be attackers.

8.6 We support a physical barrier along the entire Mexican/American border.

Democrats should offer to compromise and build a 6-inch tall tripwire along the border.

8.10 We believe the government should not reimburse families for the loss of a loved one due to an act of God, natural disaster, or terrorist attacks unless the individual was a member of the armed services or in the employ of the United States Government.

Is this happening somewhere?

9.12 Our judicial system should not use precedents or rulings from any source outside of the United States.

Because only legal proceedings held here in the United States are worthwhile. I feel like I’m using the word xenophobia a lot in this post, but can you really argue with it?

9.14 We support the repeal of state and federal “hate crimes” legislation.

Translation: If I want to string up a black or a gay, that’s my right.

9.15 We support a parental rights amendment to the United States Constitution stating that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

Because they certainly aren’t allowed to raise their children now. I'm getting close to demanding a constitutional amendment banning these people from having children, much less raising them.

10.2 We oppose any further financial obligations being placed upon the United States by the United Nations.

International organizations are full of foreigners. We can’t be paying for that.

10.4 We support the mission of the troops in the war on terror and full prosecution of the war until our goals are achieved.

I think “full prosecution” is what a lot of Americans want.

10.11 We oppose reinstating the draft.

Even the farthest right wing of the Republican party isn’t this crazy.

10.13 We support development of controls so that foreign governments are never in a position to influence the outcome of an American election.

Xeno...oh, what’s the point?

11.6 We believe that the Department of Natural Resources should stop the protection of cougars, bobcats, wolves, bears, porcupines and other dangerous animals in state parks and timbered private property.

Porcupines? PORCUPINES? Are you out of your mind? Who the hell sat down and decided that porcupines are dangerous? What next? Are the squirrels attacking?

13.5 We resolve that the income tax be repealed on Social Security and pension income.

Before this session, it had been mostly done, with only the largest pensions and Social Security payments being taxed. Then another law was passed during session making it all tax-free. Now, there’s definitely no need for this plank.

14.15 We expect political campaigns to be conducted in a positive and truthful manner.

Much like we “expect” to find WMD’s.

KL

Had the chance to see Mark Warner today

Took a long lunch break to see Mark Warner (campaign page, Wikipedia) stump for Chet Culver this afternoon. The crowd was probably in the 40-50 range, which is pretty good for a daytime Tuesday event.

Before I could hear Warner speak, though, Culver opened with this line:

"It's great to see so many people coming together to beat Jim Nussle!"

I can't adequately express my frustration.

Anyway, after going on for way too long, Culver gave the floor to Warner, who produced the following notables:

Before becoming governor, Warner helped 400,000 Virginians receive health care. If anyone can provide proof/details, please let me know, because I'd hate to just throw that number out with no credibility like the press does when they say Vilsack created 25,000 jobs.

Warner seems to think America is capable of great things but no one has called upon them to do it. I find that interesting. Perhaps I'll stew on it some more and produce something deeper later.

Warner acknowledged Culver, Attorney General Tom Miller, and Ed Fallon, but failed to acknowledge Denise O'Brien, who was standing in the front row with her arms crossed the whole time.

Lots of elected officials in attendance, including State Senators Jack Hatch and Dick Dearden, as well as the above mentions.

Also lots of people who were on the payroll of the IDP. They were also the first to arrive, leading me to wonder if they were sent by the bosses.

Anyway, perhaps more depth later, but for now, a quick impression on Warner: I liked him. He seems genuine enough, and his apparent campaign theme of "A fair shot for everyone" resonates with me. Maybe at some point I'll get to hear more from him and I'll have more to add.

KL

Now that we know you're paying for it...

Paging through the old emails this morning, I found a story from the Muscatine Journal I had sent myself so I would remember to write about it. I promptly forgot. It happens.

Anyway, in case you didn't read it, here's the gist of the story. Louisa County is getting a new jail. On November 7, while voters in Wapello are choosing between Chet Culver and Jim Nussle, they'll also vote on a 1-cent sales tax to be used to pay for said jail. When I first read that, I thought, "Here's a real opportunity for criminal justice advocates. Vote no on the sales tax, and if it fails Louisa County will be forced to rethink who it imprisons." Then I read the last line:

Supervisors said if the bond referendum does not pass, the jail costs would probably have to be paid for through property taxes.

So now it's a different matter altogether. Louisa County is getting a new jail, it's just a question of who will pay for it. And who should?

I feel like three arguments all make sense here, let me see if I can do them all justice:

Everyone should. The jail should be paid for through a sales tax, ensuring that everyone who needs the jail, and even some out-of-towners who don't, pay a share of it's construction costs.

Those who can afford to should. Property taxes should be used for the jail, as owners of larger properties are more likely to have the resources to pay for the jail.

No one should. The need for a new jail is a sign of the failings of our criminal justice system. We should halt the construction of new jails and instead re-evaluate who we're sending to them.

Which answer do you agree with? Vote in the poll on your right. I'll publish the results on Monday and post a new poll.

KL

So I didn't go see Evan Bayh

But I got a quick feel for him from this Daily Iowan article and video. The video is higher quality in production than one would expect from a college paper, but the content is about what one would expect.

Bayh doesn't start speaking until about halfway through, but before that, they do talk to a local party activist who's supporting Dave Loebsack because "we need to beat Jim Leach." I'm going to get a welt in the middle of my forehead if I keep seeing that.

Hat tip to John Deeth for alerting me to the coverage.

KL

Maybe not what you came here for, but nonetheless...

I've decided it's time for a change.

As many of you have met me know, I'm overweight. I clocked in this morning at 5'10", 247.4 lbs. It's been a pretty constant struggle for me for a long time. I remember going home from college once, weighing myself and being shocked by the fact that I had ballooned to 217 lbs. Then I had to start moving up from XL to XXL clothes. When I broke 240, I swore it was time to change. I gave up ice cream and deep fried foods and started going to the gym every other day. And I lost 13 lbs.

Then I started working more leading up to election day, and as a result I stopped going to the gym. And I put 20 lbs back on.

This morning I read Ennui's post about Democrats and how they blather about Social Security but can't fix the problem. And I realized I've been doing the same thing with my weight for years.

So here's the new plan. On your right, below the blogroll and the newspapers, is my current weight. I'll do my best to update it every day, good or bad. I'll also keep you posted on what I'm doing about it.

(As an aside, I've got the greatest job ever. I just called the office to ask if I need to come in right away or if I could sneak in a trip to the gym before work. I was told to take my time. Seriously, who gets away with calling in fat?)

KL

Composition of Gravel Part 3: Candidacy

Editor's note: After being out sick most of Friday and Saturday, I wrote this today at about 3:00 pm, and when I finished it, the internet was out. When it rains it pours.

Thanks to everyone who has commented, called, IM'ed or emailed this weekend to check on my health. I'm feeling considerably better. Still a little fatigued, but I was feeling well enough to disc golf 9 holes this morning and I'm still scheduled to umpire a softball game tonight, so I'll live.

I think I'm ready to wrap up the conversation on Gravel, but before I do, some related links:

Part 1 of my notebook from my meeting with Gravel.
Part 2A.
Part 2B.
Mike Gravel's Wikipedia page.
Gravel's campaign page.
The National Initiative for Democracy.
FairTax.org

I'm not sure what I was expecting when I walked into the lobby of the Hotel Fort Des Moines to interview Mike Gravel. Certainly I had underestimated him, and that's probably my fault. I met with Gravel for over an hour, then his communications director, then I met a Boston Globe reporter who was sent to cover him. I heard an idea I'd never heard before, another idea I'd never heard a Democrat endorse before, and then had an independent political professional tell me he was the real deal.

Truth is, I wanted to like Gravel. For those of you who don't know, if you were writing Mike Gravel's biography, the first thing you would call Gravel is "former Alaskan senator." The second thing would be "American hero." We're talking about the guy who helped release the Pentagon Papers, and the guy who embarked upon the one-man filibuster that led to the end of the military draft in 1973. If you were to make a list of people most responsible for the end of the war in Vietnam, Gravel would be one of your first entries.

He's motivated by a lot of the same things I am. He wants to get special interests out of politics. He wants a simpler tax system which will both ensure that everyone is paying their fair share and shift our societal emphasis from consumption to savings.

I don't talk a lot about the war in this space. I think the war is a dangerous subject for liberals because of things liberals have said about it. I think, to a point, State 29 is right when he says that the most vocal war protestors are only interested in screaming about the lies of our president, not in solving the problem.

I'm not going to take a stand on that now. This isn't the place for it. But I will say this. The possibility that the current administration lied to send us down this path, the possibility that the war in Iraq is merely a continuation of a Bush agenda instead of a response to a national security threat and the possibility that thousands of Americans have died and thousands more could die based on a move made on faulty intelligence and lies would suggest that perhaps we, as Americans, need a new method to determine the actions we are going to take to defend ourselves. I think the possibility that it happened with Iraq also demands an investigation to see if it did happen. I think Gravel is with me on that.

So while Gravel and I stand together on our goals, I find that I can't stand behind any of his proposals to reach those goals. I don't think the National Initiative would get special interests out of politics. I think it would make them worse. I don't believe the Fair Tax would actually solve the problems with our Tax Code. I think the shifts involved would create economic disaster, at least in the short term. I like his stance on the war. But I think several other Democrats, Feingold included, will come forward with similar stances.

While I was taking a nap Friday night in an effort to get some rest and feel better, the phone woke me up twice. The first call isn't relevant to this conversation. The second call was Gravel, and we spoke for over an hour. To his tremendous credit, he allowed me to tell him about every concern I have with his two major plans. To his discredit, he didn't have a single answer that led me to change my mind about my concerns. I still think, mathematically, the Fair Tax is a flawed argument. I still think the National Initiative would be nearly impossible to enact, incredibly expensive to follow and frighteningly ineffective once it was in place.

For those reasons, and some others, I continue to field Mike Gravel's calls, I continue to answer his questions, and I will continue to at times offer him advice, but I do not intend to support him, and I'm not sure I would recommend others do so either.

KL

Today's plans

I'm not feeling well today, so I won't be making the trip across the state to see Evan Bayh in Davenport tonight. I'd probably throw up on his shoes and no one wants that. I've emailed my contact with the All America PAC to let him know I'd be interested in rescheduling the next time the Senator is in town.

I do, however, still have a relatively full slate of things to talk about, so keep an eye on this space over the weekend.

Right now though, I think it's time for a nap.

KL

Composition of Gravel, Part 2B: The National Initiative

Click here and here to read the earlier parts of this post, and here to learn more about gravel.

As I mentioned in Part 2A, I had promised Senator Gravel I would send him my concerns on the National Initiative before I published them. I sent them Monday night. I know Gravel is in New Hampshire for the Fourth, but I want to finish my thoughts on Gravel before I leave for my meeting with Bayh tomorrow. Therefore, as I did with Part 1, I'm going to express my concerns now, and if I receive corrections from the Gravel campaign, I'll update the post, and add a new post to let you know I did so.

When I met with Gravel, the National Initiative blew my mind. For those of you who are unfamiliar, the National Initiative is a plan to allow more laws, amendments and other legislative actions to be done via direct democracy, with registered voters receiving the opportunity to sponsor, vote on and pass laws at all levels of government. To get a more detailed version of the proposal, read the National Institute for Democracy's Democracy Amendment, Democracy Act and The Parrish Report, which explains some of the finer points of both. Combined, they're about 30 pages of reading, but if you really want to get a feel for where Gravel is going with this, they're well worth the read. I put about 3 1/2 hours into them Monday night.

What I emerged with, though, were concerns. Lots of them. In the email I sent Gravel, I ended up breaking them into seven groups. Two of them are relatively small procedural details, but these five are huge:

Issue 1: Philadelphia II.

Gravel and NI4D estimate that they will need 50 million votes for the Amendment to pass. That's a huge number to gather, but it becomes even more difficult when you consider that the government isn't even going to be responsible for the vote. Instead, Gravel has created an organization, Philadelphia II, to handle the counting of votes. Philadelphia II is not composed of any current elected officials, was not chosen by the public and is not recognized by the government as an entity qualified to perform an election. Furthermore, on this issue Philadelphia II is not an impartial entity. According to the Parrish report it "has been fostering the principles embodied in the National Initiative since 1992."

NI4D says this is not a problem. In the Parrish report, they say that, "The election enacting the National Initiative is a self-enacting process whereby the People are able to vote for the Amendment and the Act because of the election itself." They compare it to the voting process by which the states ratified the Constitution. Very rarely in politics do you get away with something by saying "Well, we did it this way 225 years ago."

Finally, the process of allowing the election to be performed by a partial entity creates the potential for voter fraud on an unbelievable scale (see section on Internet Voting).

Issue 2: Interest Groups

From Section 3P of the Act:

"Only United States citizens may contribute funds, services or property in support of or in opposition to an initiative. Contributions from corporations including, but not limited to, such incorporated entities as industry groups, labor unions, political parties, political action committees, organized religions and associations, are specifically prohibited."

Here are the three red flags that went up when I read that:

* Since the regulations you've proposed on elections involving initiatives are significantly different from the regulations in place for existing elections, won't the differences create a system of confusion in regards to what is legal in which election?
* Aren't the existing regulations (or lack thereof) a function of decades of specific regulations being rejected by the Supreme Court? As such, isn't there precedent to suggest that the Supreme Court would find these restrictions similarly unconstitutional?
* By holding relatively frequent, likely low-voter-turnout elections to pass initiatives, wouldn't the Initiative actually create a system where more power rests in the hands of interest groups like labor unions, religious organizations and political parties, who have built-in grassroots capacity?

Right now interest groups give financial support to candidates who then go to their legislative body and vote the interest of their donors. If interest groups didn't feel they were benefitting by spending the money, they wouldn't do it, plain and simple.

But by allowing citizens to vote directly on laws, all you would do is remove the middleman. Since you'll never be able to keep special interest groups from exercising their right of free speech, instead of spending money on candidates, they'll spend it directly on voter persuasion. They'll probably be better off.

Issue 3: The Electoral Trust

The Democracy Act calls for the creation of the Electoral Trust, a body that will oversee elections where initiatives are in play. The Electoral Trust will be responsible for all initiatives, be they local, statewide or nationwide, and will read and review all proposals before they may even begin the work of qualifying to be put on the ballot. To put it simply, to achieve the proposed results it seems as if the Electoral Trust would have to be the largest governmental organization in history, which would be both tremendously unwieldy and expensive.

During his first year in the Legislature, Ed Fallon proposed over 100 bills, causing a legislative colleague to propose a bill limiting the number of bills one could propose. Allowing all citizens to propose laws will create an environment where some people considerably more unhinged than Fallon will get a chance to do a lot more damage. And every time the crackpot down the street decides to write a federal law banning the sale of pastrami on Tuesdays, the Electoral Trust will have to proofread and approve it. It'd be an organizational nightmare.

Issue 4: Deliberative Committees

Under the Democracy Act, every so often you'd get a letter. It'd look a lot like the one that comes when you've got jury duty. Only in this case, you'd be called to a deliberative committee.

Deliberative committees would be chosen at random to read over and create recommended results on pending initiatives. They would have access to experts and researchers on the subject, and would publish their decision.

In concept, it seems like a good idea. The problem would occur when legislation starts to hit complicated issues. A large percentage of initiatives will probably relate to issues that don't relate to a fair amount of the electorate or are complicated enough to be largely unknown. When John Doe, for example, a plumber with a high school education from small town Iowa, is called to a Deliberative Committee in Washington to discuss foreign economic policy, do you believe he'll have much to add to the conversation?

Then they'll publish their results. The concept of having Deliberative Committees write reports on their findings seems like asking everyday citizens to write Supreme Court decisions. I don't think they'll come back with results that are useful in the average American's decision making process very often.

Finally, I have no idea how we'd pay for it. The Parrish Report calls for deliberative committee members to "be compensated at their respective usual rates of remuneration, up to a reasonable limit determined by the Electoral Trust." These groups will often be convened for weeks or months. They won't cost as much as the Electoral Trust, but they won't be cheap.

Issue 5: Internet Voting

Philadelphia II will allow internet voting for the National Initiative, and once the Democracy Act is in place, they will allow internet voting on all resolutions going forward. Between a newfound epidemic of identity theft, entire generations that are computer illiterate, increasingly low voter turnout and groups that don't take online elections seriously, this is like holding up a sign saying "defraud me please." Nevermind the fact that the elderly and lower income people have less or lower internet access.

Finally, since online voting has never been done in a major election before, Philadelphia II's decision to allow online voting on the National Initiative would give any and all opponents a leg to stand on when challenging the Initiative in court, which they would inevitably do.

When Gravel explained the Fair Tax, I disagreed, but I could at least envision an environment where it could work and see the benefits of it. As it turns out, the Fair Tax would create a budget shortfall on the "National Disaster" level.

When Gravel proposed the National Initiative, I couldn't believe anyone would think this could possibly work. I took the advice of some people I met and took some time to think about it, do my homework, and discuss it with people. I did all that. I still can't believe anyone would think this could possibly work.

As I said before, I'm hoping I'll hear back from the Gravel campaign on this. If I do, I'll let you know.

KL

Gander Mountain: Taking the High Road.

A hat tip today to Joe Kristan over at Roth and Co., who was the first to discover this interview with Gander Mountain CEO Mark Baker. At first glance, you may think Baker is a little taller than his competitors. That's an optical illusion created by the fact that his competitors are on their knees, begging for your tax dollars.

Gander Mountain is standing tall because they've refused to play the game that way. Some quotes from the interview:

Playing one community off another, these retailers push for tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers to help finance their stores. Even more troubling, in some cases they are persuading states to give them favorable "nexus rulings" that are costing taxpayers even more in lost sales tax collections ... Neither Cabela's nor Bass Pro would disclose the total amount of public money they have received over the years, but our estimates put the combined total at well over $400 million. When you add the value of the nexus rulings, the total goes even higher.

"We believe in the American system of free enterprise and consider these demands to be anti-competitive and fundamentally inappropriate. We cannot in good conscience go down that road and maintain our integrity as a good corporate citizen. We think it's wrong. So we are unwilling to accept the 'everyone is doing it' argument and become part of the problem."

"Resources that could be used for education or true economic development are being wasted on private retail developments. Communities have been paying big money to bring in low-paying retail jobs. Buda, Texas, for instance, gave Cabela's subsidies worth $61 million, or about $271,000 for every full-time job, according to our estimates. Reno, Nevada spent $54 million, or $208,000 for every job."

I'm not really an outside kind of person, but quotes like this make me want to shop at Gander Mountain. Also, in the article, Baker mentions materials and studies Gander Mountain routinely shows to local governments. A quick phone call to Gander Mountain Base Camp in St. Paul got me a link to Say No 2 Outdoors Retail Subsidies.com, which is a terrible name for a great site.

They do have a blog, but more importantly, they've got this page of studies done on public incentives for retailers. If you're still not sure corporate welfare is a problem, check out:

This study done at Iowa State on how big box retailers affect their community and the surrounding areas,

This study, done in Pittsburgh, on how subsidizing retail has cost the metro area millions and produced next to nothing in new jobs,

This economic impact analysis from Florence, Alabama concerning a proposed Bass Pro Shop,

and this list, which lays out the multitude of reasons why corporate welfare typically fails to produce jobs.

I only wish the current administration would read some of this.

KL

A new blog, and Warning Labels Gone Wild

Hat tips are due to State 29 and Side Notes, who beat me to the punch on FromDC2Iowa, a great new blog written by Nicholas Johnson, former Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission and current Iowa City School Board member and U of I Law Professor. Johnson does a great job pointing out arguments for a Clean Elections Act, check them out here and here.

Then, if this guy got his way, steak knives would have to come with a warning label: "Best when not used on genitalia."

At least, not your own genitalia.

KL

Composition of Gravel, Part 2A: The Delay

Gentle readers:

I know I'm weeks overdue on Parts 2 and 3 of my reaction to my meeting with Senator Mike Gravel, and for a variety of reasons, they're not done yet. Here's a quick rundown of the holdup:

1) I didn't get as much done on vacation as I would've liked, but then again, it was a vacation.

2) My increased frustration level makes it hard for me to focus on politics for extended periods at times.

3) I promised Senator Gravel I would share my concerns with the National Initiative with him before I published them. I finished them tonight and I've sent them off to him. As a courtesy to him and an effort to make sure I'm not wasting your time with incomplete or inaccurate info, I'm going to give him a few days to respond before I post on it.

So, rest assured, I intend to have my analysis on Gravel done before I meet with Evan Bayh on Friday, but it's not quite ready for you yet.

KL

Culture of Corruption vs Culture of..."Not Culture of Corruption."

So, I'm back from Wisconsin. Actually, I've been back since Thursday. The break was nice, thanks for asking.

Actually, the break came at a very opportune time. I departed the state right after State Convention two weeks ago, and it's a good thing I did, because I've never been more frustrated with politics in my life than I was on that day. In fact, it only took about 3 hours for the party to enfuriate me to the point where I needed to be somewhere else.

What pushed me over the edge, you ask? The Iowa Democratic Party's total lack of direction. I tried to sit through all the speeches. I made it through Tom Miller, the guy who spoke for Denise O'Brien, Mike Mauro, Blouin, and Fallon. If you missed it, here was the basic theme of every speech:

Democrats: We're not the Bush Administration or Jim Nussle.

Beyond that, we could be absolutely anything. Nothing would surprise me. Or, as we often are, we could be nothing at all.

I'm enfuriated by Democrats who spend more time on the stump talking about their opponent's failings than their own strengths. Maybe 8 years ago we could have made an argument that running as non-Republicans might win an election. By now, we should be pretty sure that's not going to work.

But we haven't learned our lesson yet. Certainly, no one at the State Party Convention is voting for Nussle. But we still spent all day bashing him. Even Ed Fallon got into the game:

"I want to close with a chant that I recommend you use to help motivate you in the campaign this fall. 'Out-muscle Jim Nussle, out-hustle Jim Nussle, let's tussle with Nussle and win!'"

That's when I left. But at home, and even in Wisconsin, I couldn't get away from it. As if James and the Giant Deficit and Gordon Fischer weren't enough, now we've got Nussle and Flow, and just so he won't feel left out, Steve King's perpetual bashers have created King Watch. And of course, at first opportunity, Chris Woods and NoNeed4thneed heralded them. I'm not surprised by our actions, in fact I'm frustrated by the fact that I've come to expect them. Soon I'm also expecting to see the launch of Lamberti's Lies, Loser Leach, Liberals for the Last Term of Tom Latham, Whalen's Weaknesses, Dumb Doctor Dopf, Negative Northey, and of course, after the runaway success of Growing Up Gotti, it's only a matter of time before someone makes Growing Up Grassley. We'll do anything we can to beat the Republicans without being forced to stick our own necks out. The problem is, with this strategy, we won't beat many Republicans.

I spent a lot of time fishing with my dad while I was home. Apparently muskies are motivated by specific moon cycles. After a few hours with no success, my mind was somewhere else when I absentmindedly had this exchange with my dad:

DAD: Tonight's a moon phase, but the fish don't seem to know that.
KL: It's cloudy, maybe they can't see the moon.

Maybe we can't see the moon either. It's certainly not that we as Democrats haven't had the opportunity to bite. We're in a largely unpopular war, an economic downturn, and we're waist deep in corruption, but our candidates seem to stand with us on less issues every election cycle.

To carry the analogy a step further, it's not the clouds that get in the way, it's our rhetoric. Here's a great example:

In the fourth congressional district, I've only heard Selden Spencer speak a few times, and I've only spoken to him once, but the phrase "Bush clone" has come up in reference to Tom Latham every single time. Here's the problem: in 2004, Bush received over 153,000 votes in the district, and won it by over 7,000 votes. He won 17 of the district's 27 counties. Kerry won Ames and Mason City by 4,889 votes, and lost the rest of the district by almost 12,000. In the immortal words of P.O.D., If you wanna you can check my stats. Spencer has offered little or nothing else memorable in his message.

An early prediction: Spencer will win Story County. Latham will sweep the other 26 en route to a landslide victory.

Even in the perfect storm, we're unlikely to unseat any sitting Republican congressmen in Iowa this fall. And we're going to be stuck with this situation or worse for a long time unless we do the following things:

Provide reasonable alternatives: Here's the new rule in regards to the Iraq War, privatization of Social Security, tax cuts for the wealthy, and violations of privacy: If you're going to complain about any of these things, make sure you've got a solution. Don't just bitch about the problem. Don't support candidates who just bitch about the problem. Support candidates with legitimate plans to fix the problem.

Vote, campaign and work FOR change, not AGAINST the problem: Whether it was the 2004 IDP Coordinated Campaign or the Fallon campaign, I've worked with a ton of people who have told me the following:

"We need to work for (Kerry/Fallon) because we need to get rid of (Bush/Culver/Blouin/Nussle)."

If you're one of the people who say things like that, don't ever do it again. For people who are on board with your candidate, you're preaching to the choir. To independent and Republican voters, you're whining. And it's really, really irritating.

What's that mean for 2006? It's simple. Support candidates you can vote FOR. Don't vote AGAINST Jim Nussle, don't vote AGAINST a Congressional candidate, or a candidate for any other office. Either vote FOR Chet Culver and the other Democratic candidates, or don't. Either campaign FOR Democratic candidates, or don't.

And if you're one of the people who's gotten yourself fully absorbed in campaigning against someone, stop it. You're part of the problem.

KL